The Iran War

Well, for the analogy to be correct, Russian leadership would have to have labeled the US as an existential evil so that should allay... ...wait, no, that actually makes it worse.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe, maybe not: I know it doesn't give a neighboring country a reason to hold a grudge. In fact, why exactly would Iran hold a grudge against us for invading Iraq given the history? Shouldn't Iran be like, the *least* likely member of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club?

Why would Iran hold a grudge against us?

Perhaps it was because we had the CIA overthrow their government in 1953 and install a puppet government that wasn't exactly kind to its own citizens as it exploited them for nearly three decades. Or maybe it was because we backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, a little conflict that lasted eight years, killed 500,000 Iranians, and wrecked their economy.

The bottom line is Iran had plenty of reasons to hate and/or fear us before the last decade. Invading the two countries on either side of it, effectively boxing it in, was just the icing on the cake.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe, maybe not: I know it doesn't give a neighboring country a reason to hold a grudge. In fact, why exactly would Iran hold a grudge against us for invading Iraq given the history? Shouldn't Iran be like, the *least* likely member of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club?

Why would Iran hold a grudge against us?

No, why should Iran hold a grudge against us for invading Iraq.

Perhaps it was because we had the CIA overthrow their government in 1953 and install a puppet government that wasn't exactly kind to its own citizens as it exploited them for nearly three decades. Or maybe it was because we backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, a little conflict that lasted eight years, killed 500,000 Iranians, and wrecked their economy.

The bottom line is Iran had plenty of reasons to hate and/or fear us before the last decade. Invading the two countries on either side of it, effectively boxing it in, was just the icing on the cake.

Why do you think I said "Shouldn't Iran be like, the *least* likely member of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club?"?

+++++

Malor wrote:
Now, what does that have to with anyone but the people Afghanistan holding a grudge over our invasion of Afghanistan?

People in Iran are friends with people in Afghanistan.

So Iran should hold a grudge for us attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan who they were going to attack for killing--in a tragic irony considering the history of Iranian-American relations--Iranian diplomats:

The war of words between Iran and Afghanistans militant Taliban escalated into more serious threats Tuesday (September 15, 1998), as the Taliban warned its military would retaliate if Iran attacked Afghanistan.

...

Iran has massed tens of thousands of troops on the Afghanistan border and threatened live fire exercises since the diplomats were killed.

Iran says that thousands of Shiite Muslims were massacred in MazariSharif when the Taliban took the city from Afghan forces opposed to the Taliban. Amnesty International and the United Nations have supported the Iranian claim.

We do not want a war with Iran, but if Iran attacks we will take all possible necessary measures, Ahmed added.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-09-15/w...

CheezePavilion wrote:

No, why should Iran hold a grudge against us for invading Iraq.

You're acting like they're all independent, unrelated acts.

We're not exactly the best of buds with Mexico, but we'd absolutely freak the f*ck out if China invaded Mexico and overthrew their government, and kept hundreds of thousands of troops there for years.

Now imagine if China's spy agency had lead a coup against Ike, installed a puppet government that took orders from Beijing for three decades, and once we finally rebelled against that government, China threw it's weight behind Mexico and supported them in their efforts ot invade us.

Then a decade later China decided to invade both Mexico and Canada.

That's what Iran's leadership is thinking about: the US is actively hostile to us, has been that way for for decades, declared us part of the Axis of Evil, and invaded and f*cked up another member of the Axis, and now they're beating the war drums for us.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Why do you think I said "Shouldn't Iran be like, the *least* likely member of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club?"?

Again, that really doesn't matter. Iran fears us more than it feared Saddam because of our history with them and our demonstrated ability to wreck their country if we want to.

We could absolutely hate Mexico or Canada, but our government immediately go on high alert if anyone invaded them for the simple reason that our borders are now the front line.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

No, why should Iran hold a grudge against us for invading Iraq.

You're acting like they're all independent, unrelated acts.

You're conflating "fear" and "grudge".

You're being deliberately pedantic. Argue substance, Cheeze, not bullsh*t. "Grudge" and "fear" aren't precisely identical, but there's little practical difference in how you would respond to someone invading a neighboring country. Carry a grudge about it, or have fear about it, and you react the same way.

This is a very dumb argument to even be having.

Malor wrote:

This is a very dumb argument to even be having.

It really is.

I realize that this ground has been covered before, but it is worth repeating that America's history regarding Iran has not been entirely benign as well. The 1953 coup of Mohammed Mosaddegh (Iran's first democratically elected president) was engineered by the CIA in what is now known as the well-documented Operation Ajax. The decades of repression that followed pretty much insured that the modern memory of American-Iranian relations would be viewed through the lens of neo-colonialism.

I know folks in America will likely respond with "but that was 60 years ago" or "why can't they just get over it?", but when presented with the clusterfcuk of the Iraq War, it is hard to extend that kind of good faith when confronted with such stark evidence that little if anything has really changed. We see these incidents in isolation. They see it as part of an historical pattern.

Not only that, but the history of colonialism in the area makes us look like the follow-on to the British and French...

Yonder wrote:
Malor wrote:

This is a very dumb argument to even be having.

It really is.

Sorry, but this sounds like sour grapes to me.

Paleocon wrote:

I know folks in America will likely respond with "but that was 60 years ago" or "why can't they just get over it?", but when presented with the clusterfcuk of the Iraq War, it is hard to extend that kind of good faith when confronted with such stark evidence that little if anything has really changed. We see these incidents in isolation. They see it as part of an historical pattern.

What about the response "that's not stark evidence?" I don't get this whole 'the Iraq war proves...' Saddam was our guy, the guy we saw and said 'hey--here's a useful tool' and gave our backing to a pretty terrible leader on their region. Then he went rogue and threatened our other...whatever you want to call Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and we invaded. Then later on we invaded again. Then we actually got out.

This is not about good faith. This is about facts. If someone is going to compare taking down Iran's government and putting the Shah in to taking out the Iraqi dictator we ourselves propped up and at least trying to put in place some sort of legitimate, decent government, then the problem is theirs.

Of course, like was brought up earlier and kicked this part of the discussion off, just because someone is seeing historical patterns doesn't mean they're seeing *history*; it just means they're seeing patterns, and that can be no more meaningful than when someone believe they've found Jesus in a piece of toast.

But... we overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government and were directly responsible for the current regime coming into power. That makes them "our guys" and according to our your reading of our relationship with Iraq that means that we are allowed to step in and bomb the crap out of them any time we want to. You still don't think that Iraq should make them nervous?

This isn't seeing Jesus in a piece of toast, this is watching all of the stars in the night sky shift to form the words "Hey Idiots! This is me. I am God."

Yonder wrote:

But... we overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government and were directly responsible for the current regime coming into power. That makes them "our guys"

I'm going to disagree that being "directly responsible" whether it's what you intended or the diametrically opposed opposite of what you intended makes you "our guy".

CheezePavilion wrote:

What about the response "that's not stark evidence?" I don't get this whole 'the Iraq war proves...' Saddam was our guy, the guy we saw and said 'hey--here's a useful tool' and gave our backing to a pretty terrible leader on their region. Then he went rogue and threatened our other...whatever you want to call Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and we invaded. Then later on we invaded again. Then we actually got out.

This is not about good faith. This is about facts. If someone is going to compare taking down Iran's government and putting the Shah in to taking out the Iraqi dictator we ourselves propped up and at least trying to put in place some sort of legitimate, decent government, then the problem is theirs.

Of course, like was brought up earlier and kicked this part of the discussion off, just because someone is seeing historical patterns doesn't mean they're seeing *history*; it just means they're seeing patterns, and that can be no more meaningful than when someone believe they've found Jesus in a piece of toast.

Wait, now you're suddenly interested in facts? The man who has repeatedly insisted that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon so it can be more aggressive/hostile in the region without providing a single bit of evidence to back up his position?

This is Occam's Razor stuff, Cheeze. What's more believable? Iran pushing to develop nuclear weapons because the US has invaded and overthrown its neighbors, declared it part of the Axis of Evil, pushed for harsh sanctions that harm its people, and is sending signals that it will either allow or actually help Israel (another nuclear-armed state) to directly attack it *or* Iran wants to develop nukes because having nukes will somehow help Hezbollah?

You've also never responded to the examples I've put forward about the US doing a Freaky Friday with Iran and switching roles. Seriously. Red team it. How would US leaders react to a country invading and occupying Mexico and Canada and making numerous claims about how we were Satan incarnate? How would they react if it was the same country that had previously overthrown our democratically-elected government? Unlike your position that what happened last decade doesn't matter, these are things that a chunk of the population (including our political leaders) would actually remember happening.

Would the leaders of Freaky Friday America sit back and do nothing or freak the f*ck out and start looking for the biggest stick they could find to protect themselves?

Also, explain how your previous assertion that the US is the biggest stabilizing force in the region when your first paragraph shows we've been the proverbial bull in a china shop: we help put Saddam in power, used him to wage a proxy war with Iran, then abandoned our support of him when he invaded Kuwait (something we kinda gave our tacit approval of), shoved him in a sanction box for a decade, and then invaded once again using a series of blatant lies to justify our actions. We're the crazy, unpredictable, and disruptive f*ckers, Cheeze.

OG_slinger wrote:

Wait, now you're suddenly interested in facts? The man who has repeatedly insisted that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon so it can be more aggressive/hostile in the region without providing a single bit of evidence to back up his position?

No, I have not insisted they are developing a nuclear weapon: "I sometimes wonder if this talk of developing nuclear weapons was a ploy to unite the country in opposition to the West...We talk all the time about Bush using the bogeyman of terrorism to scare Americans--why would it be beyond the Iranian clerics to play the same game with their own people? Heck, now that I think about it, maybe those assassinations and bombings we were talking about were done by Iran themselves."

I have insisted that if they were, it wouldn't just be about defense. It would be about the greater leeway it would give them to be aggressive. Just like I don't think *you* are insisting they are building a nuclear weapon just because you are arguing they've got a really, really good reason to have one.

This is Occam's Razor stuff, Cheeze. What's more believable? Iran pushing to develop nuclear weapons because the US has invaded and overthrown its neighbors, declared it part of the Axis of Evil, pushed for harsh sanctions that harm its people, and is sending signals that it will either allow or actually help Israel (another nuclear-armed state) to directly attack it *or* Iran wants to develop nukes because having nukes will somehow help Hezbollah?

The Occam's Razor explanation is: both--they are not mutually exclusive options.

You've also never responded to the examples I've put forward about the US doing a Freaky Friday with Iran and switching roles.

Because it's impossible to do. Iraq is not Canada, and Afghanistan is not Mexico even if there is an immigration issue there too.

Also, explain how your previous assertion that the US is the biggest stabilizing force in the region

My assertion was: "I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over." Let's face it: it's a pretty low bar given the region. It's also an area where the biggest source of instability in my mind are the issues that surround Israel. That's why I said that.

If I'm wrong, it's not because I'm downplaying the importance of the things you said: it would be because I'm exaggerating the effect the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/Syria quagmire has on the region.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I have insisted that if they were, it wouldn't just be about defense. It would be about the greater leeway it would give them to be aggressive. Just like I don't think *you* are insisting they are building a nuclear weapon just because you are arguing they've got a really, really good reason to have one.

Again, you can't call for facts and continue to assume that if they're building a nuke it's to help them be aggressive. The entire nuclear arms race--heck, any arms race--is that countries develop weapons because another country has said nukes and they are at a disadvantage (read: more vulnerable) if they don't have the same.

There's no real evidence in the history of the world that nations who have nuclear weapons act more aggressively. That's simply something you are insisting on without a shred of proof.

And, just to lay it all on the table, I do think that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: either an actual device or all the components and technologies required for a nuclear missile. And, as a sovereign nation, it is perfectly OK for them to do so. Hell, it makes sense for them do so considering what's going on.

CheezePavilion wrote:

The Occam's Razor explanation is: both--they are not mutually exclusive options.

And yet your position isn't both. It's that they're developing nukes to allow them to be more aggressive. You are completely ignoring the simplest explanation and the same one that has been behind every arms race in the history of the planet: fear.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Because it's impossible to do. Iraq is not Canada, and Afghanistan is not Mexico even if there is an immigration issue there too.

Yes, it is. Our military and intelligence agencies do it all the time. They ask the red team to pretend they are the opposition force and take it from there.

I asked you to think about what the US would do if a hostile nation invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, not compare Iraq to Canada, etc. I brought this up for force you to think about a situation that would be very similar to what Iran is going through right now, with a hostile nation invading and occupying its neighbors.

I purposely want you to think of how US politicians would react to that situation in order to force you to think about how the Iranian leadership is thinking about things.

So, again, how do you think that Freaky Friday America would react? Meekly sit there and take it, or do what any proud, nationalistic country would do: look for ways to defend itself against what it perceives to be a very real and direct threat to not only its citizens, but also the very political leadership running the country?

CheezePavilion wrote:

My assertion was: "I think it's more a disagreement about the net effect of both stabilizing and destabilizing actions. Besides, the past decade is over." Let's face it: it's a pretty low bar given the region. It's also an area where the biggest source of instability in my mind are the issues that surround Israel. That's why I said that.

If I'm wrong, it's not because I'm downplaying the importance of the things you said: it would be because I'm exaggerating the effect the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/Syria quagmire has on the region.

You really are downplaying the disruptive effect our invasion of Iraq had on the region. By any measure, that debacle has had more effect in the region than the whole Israel/Palestine thing: body count, forced migration of millions of people (which burdens and disrupts neighboring countries), and, last but not least, forcing the entire Shia/Sunni split from a disagreement to something everyone has to chose sides on and fight. We have no f*cking idea of how that is going to ripple down over time, but as we saw in Iraq, it ain't gonna be pretty.

Hell, we don't even know if the Iraqi government that we created and propped up is going to survive the next six months. We took a relatively stable situation, Saddam shunted into a box where he couldn't--and didn't--do anything for a decade, and blew it all up. We purposely introduced a metric f*ckton of chaos in the region.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I have insisted that if they were, it wouldn't just be about defense. It would be about the greater leeway it would give them to be aggressive. Just like I don't think *you* are insisting they are building a nuclear weapon just because you are arguing they've got a really, really good reason to have one.

Again, you can't call for facts and continue to assume that if they're building a nuke it's to help them be aggressive.

We're just coming back to say the same things over again we said here, which means it's time to move past this lest this thread get a free ride in Certis' Paddy Wagon.

Our military and intelligence agencies do it all the time. They ask the red team to pretend they are the opposition force and take it from there.

There's a difference between "pretend you're the opposition force" and "pretend a radically alternate history."

I purposely want you to think of how US politicians would react to that situation in order to force you to think about how the Iranian leadership is thinking about things.

My issues with what you're asking here aside, you know what I can guarantee you US politicians would think? "Boy--if we had a nuke, we sure would have a lot more leeway to be aggressive!"

You really are downplaying the disruptive effect our invasion of Iraq had on the region. By any measure, that debacle has had more effect in the region than the whole Israel/Palestine thing

I'm content to leave that difference of opinion as the source of our disagreement.

Cheeze, you just absolutely refuse to put yourself in their shoes. You just will. not. do. it. So you have no justification for making claims about what they should or shouldn't be doing, or their motivations, because you have no idea what they are.

When we tell you to imagine how we'd react if China had been the one to kill JFK, and then invaded China and Mexico over the span of a few years, you just refuse to do it, coming up with dodges and bullsh*t so that you don't have to consider the issue directly.

I dunno, Cheeze. I don't feel that you're arguing honestly. It feels like either you lack some essential empathy somewhere, or else you're trolling.

CheezePavilion wrote:

We're just coming back to say the same things over again we said here, which means it's time to move past this lest this thread get a free ride in Certis' Paddy Wagon.

Yes, we are. But we're doing so because it's so important.

You're making an unproven claim and then using that unproven claim to justify harsh measures, up to and including attacking Iran.

It's important because we did the exact same thing with Iraq: draw up a list of "atrocities" to prove how brutish and evil they were as a nation, outright lie about their military capabilities, exaggerate the threat they posed, and use all of that to justify attacking them.

Rather than admit our national shame and collective guilt for doing so in Iraq, we're getting ready to double down on Iran.

CheezePavilion wrote:

There's a difference between "pretend you're the opposition force" and "pretend a radically alternate history."

Fine. Pretend your Iran's leadership and Iran's military, Cheeze. How would you react to what the US has done and is doing? Just remember that sh*t that happened the last decade (and the 50s and the 80s) really matters. Nothing happens in a vacuum, especially politics.

CheezePavilion wrote:

My issues with what you're asking here aside, you know what I can guarantee you US politicians would think? "Boy--if we had a nuke, we sure would have a lot more leeway to be aggressive!"

Actually, it's having a massive conventional military force that enables politicians to be more aggressive.

If a politician's only choice is nuke someone or do nothing, they'd do a lot of nothing because the consequences of nuking someone are astronomically high. Conventional forces, on the other hand, allow you to launch hundreds of cruise missiles or drop thousand of bombs without much consequence or political fallout.

If the US had a much smaller military we wouldn't even have had the option to invade Iraq (or Afghanistan). We had a large enough conventional force that gave us the confidence to be aggressive and invade Iraq. Simply put, we did it because we could. It was an option on the table and we took it. And the size of our nuclear arsenal had nothing to do with that decision.

Malor wrote:

Cheeze, you just absolutely refuse to put yourself in their shoes. You just will. not. do. it. So you have no justification for making claims about what they should or shouldn't be doing, or their motivations, because you have no idea what they are.

When we tell you to imagine how we'd react if China had been the one to kill JFK, and then invaded China and Mexico over the span of a few years, you just refuse to do it, coming up with dodges and bullsh*t so that you don't have to consider the issue directly.

I do not consider alternate histories where massive numbers of variables have to be changed for it to make any sense to be dodging the issue. I considering it simply not getting sucked into a discussion I think is ridiculous. I don't even consider it putting myself in another person's shoes given how different the footwear is.

You keep ping-pong'ing between fear and grudge. You may consider that to be deliberately pedantic, but employ some of that empathy you're talking about and realize that if you were in my shoes, you'd think it was substantive. Should that create fear? Oh yeah--in fact, at one point it looked like the exit strategy for Iraq would go through Iran. What I don't get is the idea that there's a rational reason for a grudge. Of course, like I said here, grudges are not known for being rational, so.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

There's a difference between "pretend you're the opposition force" and "pretend a radically alternate history."

Fine. Pretend your Iran's leadership and Iran's military, Cheeze. How would you react to what the US has done and is doing? Just remember that sh*t that happened the last decade (and the 50s and the 80s) really matters. Nothing happens in a vacuum, especially politics.

I'd think about getting a nuclear bomb. And see, that's the problem here: you ask me to play team red and I'm going to come up with a conclusion that I should get a nuclear bomb for the reason you cited and I agree with that it'll keep me from getting picked on. Yet I don't think you're going to be happy with that conclusion. I'm not either.

The problem here is the more I agree with you that the Iranian leadership and military think we're a bag of dicks and it's only a matter of time until there's a U.S. invasion, the stronger the argument that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. The more you make the U.S. out to be this entity with a pattern of abuse, the more logical it is for the Iranians to acquire the means to stop that abuse. Like the nuclear weapon being cited as a reason to invade.

See the vicious circle here?

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'd think about getting a nuclear bomb. And see, that's the problem here: you ask me to play team red and I'm going to come up with a conclusion that I should get a nuclear bomb for the reason you cited and I agree with that it'll keep me from getting picked on. Yet I don't think you're going to be happy with that conclusion. I'm not either.

The problem here is the more I agree with you that the Iranian leadership and military think we're a bag of dicks that and it's only a matter of time until there's a U.S. invasion, the stronger the argument that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

I came to that conclusion a long time ago, Cheeze. We've been a colossal bag of dicks as a nation for a long time and we've honed our "do as I say, not as I do" holier-than-thou attitude to perfection.

And I've already said that I think Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, or at the least they're developing all the components required to build a nuclear weapon so they can technically claim they don't really have a nuclear weapons program, but have the capability to roll out a functioning weapon in a very short amount of time.

A lot of things they're doing points to a nuclear weapons program. They're developing long range missiles. They're testing high precision explosives, the very thing you need to compress a sphere of uranium and make it go super critical. They've moved their most critical and sensitive technologies to deep underground bunkers.

They've also learned from Iraq, Pakistan, and North Korea. Iraq showed them that if the West thinks you're developing a nuke, the smartest thing to do is actually develop said nuke because we won't believe any evidence of the contrary. Iraq also taught them to never entirely kick out international inspectors. Do that and troops will be rolling over your borders within months. Instead, drag the inspections out until your weapons program is functional. Once that happens, the lessons of Pakistan and North Korea kick in: having nukes means the US backs the f*ck off. Suddenly the discussion goes from how badly we're going to bomb them to lets have a nice, friendly diplomatic talk.

EDIT to your edit:

CheezePavilion wrote:

The more you make the U.S. out to be this entity with a pattern of abuse, the more logical it is for the Iranians to acquire the means to stop that abuse. Like the nuclear weapon being cited as a reason to invade.

I'm not making the US out to be this entity with a pattern of abuse. We *are* that abusive entity.

We want to believe we're the guy in the white hat that rides into town to save the day, but the reality is that we are the gang of thugs that took over the town and is busy killing and terrorizing it's citizens.

Iranian politicians are no different US politicians. They don't get paid to assume the best, they get paid to assume the worst. Iran isn't going to look at American troops on their borders and say "I'm sure they just want to give us a hug" just like American politicians didn't say that "oh well, 9/11 happened, but I'm sure nothing like that will ever happen again so we don't need to do anything."

CheezePavilion wrote:

See the vicious circle here?

Of course I do. That why I pointed out several times before that every arms race in history follows the same path: once one country has a weapons system, every other country will want that weapons system because they feel vulnerable. We're asking Iran to trust us and they have absolutely no reason to do so. Everything we've done shows Iran that the best thing they could do is develop a nuke as fast as possible.

OG_slinger wrote:

Iranian politicians are no different US politicians. They don't get paid to assume the best, they get paid to assume the worst. Iran isn't going to look at American troops on their borders and say "I'm sure they just want to give us a hug" just like American politicians didn't say that "oh well, 9/11 happened, but I'm sure nothing like that will ever happen again so we don't need to do anything."

We don't have troops on their borders. We're out of Iraq, and we're getting out of Afghanistan. So what this is *really* about are the actions of Iran a decade ago locking them into developing a nuke, because once you start and the West takes notice, you're like MacBeth and it's as risky to get out as to just push on through to the end.

That's not some fear of neo-colonialism or pattern of abuse or thinking they're in the same position as Iraq or Afghanistan or any of that other American Guilt crap: that's just plain old fear of armies on your border from a country with a crazy cowboy in charge.

I can empathize with that ; D

We don't have troops on their borders. We're out of Iraq, and we're getting out of Afghanistan

Now I KNOW you're trolling. In two sentences, you say we don't have troops on their borders, and then explicitly state that we have troops on their borders.

CheezePavilion wrote:

We don't have troops on their borders. We're out of Iraq, and we're getting out of Afghanistan. So what this is *really* about are the actions of Iran a decade ago locking them into developing a nuke, because once you start and the West takes notice, you're like MacBeth and it's as risky to get out as to just push on through to the end.

No, no, no.

It doesn't matter if we're out of Iraq now (never mind that it took us eight years and we have another two years on our occupation clock for Afghanistan). The point is that we invaded Iraq in the first place and overthrew their government. Let that sink in. We attacked another sovereign nation on made up charges of an WMD program, bogus links to terrorism, and the fact that their government killed some of their own civilians at one point in time (making them officially Bad People). Invading countries is what the bad guys do.

Now go back and remember the reaction of Russia and China to the run up to the war (and look at their reaction now to Syria and Libya). They don't like the precedent we set of being able to invade a country and overthrow their government because, well, we just don't like them. Iran understood the lesson of the invasion of Iraq: America will bump off whoever they want to bump off, unless...

This has nothing to do with the "actions of Iran a decade ago" and everything about the actions of America a decade ago (and every decade since the 50s). There are consequences to our actions and this is one of them. Stop trying to claim that there's no linkage between what we've done and other country's reaction to our actions.

Malor wrote:
We don't have troops on their borders. We're out of Iraq, and we're getting out of Afghanistan

Now I KNOW you're trolling. In two sentences, you say we don't have troops on their borders, and then explicitly state that we have troops on their borders.

And there's another sentence where I say "the actions of Iran a decade ago." It's not so much trolling as distinguishing between then and now.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

We don't have troops on their borders. We're out of Iraq, and we're getting out of Afghanistan. So what this is *really* about are the actions of Iran a decade ago locking them into developing a nuke, because once you start and the West takes notice, you're like MacBeth and it's as risky to get out as to just push on through to the end.

No, no, no.

It doesn't matter if we're out of Iraq now (never mind that it took us eight years and we have another two years on our occupation clock for Afghanistan). The point is that we invaded Iraq in the first place and overthrew their government. Let that sink in. We attacked another sovereign nation on made up charges of an WMD program, bogus links to terrorism, and the fact that their government killed some of their own civilians at one point in time (making them officially Bad People). Invading countries is what the bad guys do.

Again, this is just a circle back to things we discussed earlier.

Now go back and remember the reaction of Russia and China to the run up to the war (and look at their reaction now to Syria and Libya). They don't like the precedent we set of being able to invade a country and overthrow their government because, well, we just don't like them. Iran understood the lesson of the invasion of Iraq: America will bump off whoever they want to bump off, unless...

Somehow I think the reactions of Russia and China have more to do with their interests in the region than anything as noble as what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with the "actions of Iran a decade ago" and everything about the actions of America a decade ago (and every decade since the 50s). There are consequences to our actions and this is one of them. Stop trying to claim that there's no linkage between what we've done and other country's reaction to our actions.

That's not what I'm claiming.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Again, this is just a circle back to things we discussed earlier.

No. It was your assertion that "what this is *really* about are the actions of Iran a decade ago locking them into developing a nuke." You keep wanting to insist that the Iranians decided all on their own and without any outside provocation to develop a nuke (and, previously, that they're doing it because they harbor a secret master plan to suddenly be hostile and aggressive in the region). You've repeatedly tried to downplay or outright ignore everything we've done, claiming that, well, that was last decade so that doesn't matter or that our troops aren't in Iraq anymore so Iran is a big poopoohead for bringing it up.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Somehow I think the reactions of Russia and China have more to do with their interests in the region than anything as noble as what you're talking about.

Nope. They don't like the idea that a UN resolution means America can bust into their country for a little regime change if we don't like what's going on. That's a direct threat to their governments (and especially all those people who benefit from being in political power).

CheezePavilion wrote:

That's not what I'm claiming.

It's certainly coming across that way.

And there's another sentence where I say "the actions of Iran a decade ago." It's not so much trolling as distinguishing between then and now.

Cheeze. Stop trolling. You say this, precisely one post after expecting Iran to forgive us for having troops on their borders.... because we might take them out someday.

And in the prior post, you literally said we don't have troops on their borders, and then exactly one sentence later, that we do.

Are you going to address this, or just leave it? How can anyone here be expected to take your arguments seriously?

For that matter, how the heck is anyone supposed to determine what your arguments even are? They're not even consistent from sentence to sentence, much less post to post. You just dance around and around, with only one constant: Iran is the bad guys, and facts and expectations shift almost from word to word so that they remain the bad guys.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Again, this is just a circle back to things we discussed earlier.

No. It was your assertion that "what this is *really* about are the actions of Iran a decade ago locking them into developing a nuke." You keep wanting to insist that the Iranians decided all on their own and without any outside provocation to develop a nuke

No, I'm not:

CheezePavilion wrote:

That's not some fear of neo-colonialism or pattern of abuse or thinking they're in the same position as Iraq or Afghanistan or any of that other American Guilt crap: that's just plain old fear of armies on your border from a country with a crazy cowboy in charge.

I can empathize with that ; D

In case it wasn't clear, I agree they were our armies, not figments of Iran's imagination or something. Like I said to Malor earlier, it did look for a while there like our exit strategy for Iraq would go through Iran.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Somehow I think the reactions of Russia and China have more to do with their interests in the region than anything as noble as what you're talking about.

Nope. They don't like the idea that a UN resolution means America can bust into their country for a little regime change if we don't like what's going on.

Yeah, they really fear we'll just bust on into Russia or China for some regime change if we're not stopped at the gates of Damascus.

Malor wrote:
And there's another sentence where I say "the actions of Iran a decade ago." It's not so much trolling as distinguishing between then and now.

Cheeze. Stop trolling. You say this, precisely one post after expecting Iran to forgive us for having troops on their borders.... because we might take them out someday.

And in the prior post, you literally said we don't have troops on their borders, and then exactly one sentence later, that we do.

Are you going to address this, or just leave it?

When the issue is that you can't distinguish between then and now, if there's a troll in this dungeon, it's not me.

+++++

Maybe it would help if I added a (admittedly simplified) timeline to follow what I'm saying:

2001: we invade Afghanistan and Iran gets nervous

2003: we invade Iraq and Iran gets VERY nervous

2001-Present: our armies on their borders provokes them into thinking they could really use a nuke

Sometime after really going for a nuke: they play team red like OG was talking about, and the realize at some point they will make the West suspicious so they better actually get that nuke because the invasion is coming--try and prove a negative--and a nuke is the only thing that will deter that invasion.

See, here's the problem: if you want to blame it on the years between when we first started with the dirty tricks and the invasion of Afghanistan and/or Iraq that puts our armies on their borders, you've got to make the argument that it was a reaction to those pre-2001 years. If it was, then 'armies on the border' is irrelevant.

Don't blame me because you're throwing everything and the kitchen sink at an argument as 'evidence' whether it fits a valid line of reasoning or not and I'm trying to point out the logical issues with that.

But you're not. Your position is self-contradictory, and in fact changes completely from post to post, in whatever way necessary to blame Iran for the conflict.

I note that you still haven't even acknowledged or remedied the direct contradiction in your own post.

Paleocon wrote:

I know folks in America will likely respond with "but that was 60 years ago" or "why can't they just get over it?", but when presented with the clusterfcuk of the Iraq War, it is hard to extend that kind of good faith when confronted with such stark evidence that little if anything has really changed. We see these incidents in isolation. They see it as part of an historical pattern.

I won't respond that way. Literally moments after the Twin Towers were hit on 9/11 I assumed it was a terrorist attack partly based on Iran. Of all the misguided and disastrous foreign policy meddlings in the Middle East pre 2002, Iran was the worst for my money. We not only enabled a brutal regime and the forced them into the embrace of another brutal regime, but we also gave cover to Iraq when they committed atrocities against Iranian citizens.

It can't be underscored enough just how terrible the US has been to Iran. The irony of us asking them to stop building weapons is thick.